Sizani v Mpofu N.O and Another (2804/2019)
Sizani v Mpofu N.O and Another (2804/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 88 (18 August 2020)
The High Court found that the magistrate acted irregularly by closing the applicant's defence case under section 342A(3)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act without the required notice from either party. The peremptory requirements of section 342A(4)(a) were not met, as the magistrate acted mero motu and neither the applicant nor the prosecution gave notice of intention to apply for such an order. This technical irregularity materially prejudiced the applicant, as she was denied access to potentially material evidence (the CVs of 16 practitioners) and was unable to properly consider her defence.…
Source excerpt
- Unreasonable Trial Delay
- Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
- Gross Irregularity
- Interim Review
- Right To Fair Trial